D.C.CHAKRAVORTI
AJIT KUMAR HAZRA – Appellant
Versus
RATHINDRA NATH ROY – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against Order No. 34 dated December 1, 1977 whereby the learned Munsif rejected the petition for substitution made by the present petitioners Nos. 1 and 2.
( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the purposes of this case are as follows. Two brothers, namely, Ram Mohit and Ram Mohan, filed a suit for eviction against the present opposite party. When the suit was still pending said Ram Mohit died on June 3, 1977 leaving a will whereby he is said to have appointed the present petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 the executors to his will. On July 27, 1977 the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in their capacity of executors made an application of being substituted in place of Ram Mohit. The application was opposed by the present opposite party before the Court below. The learned Munsif rejected that application.
( 3 ) MR. Shyama Prasanna Roy Choudhury, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the Rule, contends that having regard to the provisions of Sections 211, 213 and 306 of, the Indian Succession Act the learned Munsif acted illegally and with material irregularity in rejecting the prayer for substitution. Regard being had to the provisions of Section 2 (
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.